David wrote:
This involves additional philosophical assumptions besides the assumption of
the usefulness of the scientific method. The scientific method may be
adopted either ad hoc as a method that seems to work frequently or based on
philosophical considerations that it is likely to work much of the time.
Neither of these imply that it therefore must apply to everything. For
example, a belief that God, in His ordinary providence, makes use of means,
but is free to work without, above, or against them, implies that things
will usually but not absolutely always behave according to regular patterns.
<<<<<<<<<<

I think you make an important distinction here. Seems that it is often
assumed by many that if one embraces the scientific method as a powerful
means of understanding the cosmos, that entails subscription to
methodological naturalism. Unfortunately this turns many of those people off
or makes them adversarial towards science in general. However,
methodological naturalism is obviously not mandatory considering the many
working scientists who embrace both the scientific method *and* a religious
framework.

>>>>>>>>>>>
For example, a belief that God, in His ordinary providence, makes use of
means, but is free to work without, above, or against them, implies that
things will usually but not absolutely always behave according to regular
patterns.
<<<<<<<<<<<

This is where things get a bit dicey. While not logically precluded, when
religion makes claims about God's activity that fall outside a common
scientific worldview it runs the risk of either appearing frivolous in its
disregard of science or arbitrary in its acceptance or rejection of
scientific claims. Granted this is a matter for faith but the world
climate is changing. I suggest the reason there are science and religion
discussions is that worldviews that contain supernatural elements are
becoming less and less compelling for many people. Not only are religious
claims under critical scrutiny, even the idea of absolute truth is under
attack by postmodernism. Then adding to that the pluralistic religious
climate world wide, it is becoming more and more difficult for an particular
religion to claim authority by appealing to revelation or scripture.

I believe that religion, when it feels compelled, must make certain claims
that may challenge the common scientific presumptions, but I also think it
is not necessary to make those core religious claims by appealing to
supernaturalism. There is potentially way to much open space for
naturalistic divine action to have to appeal to supernatural means.
Otherwise the science and religion dialogue is a conflict instead of a
partnership.

>>>>>>>>>
Finally, it may be worth noting that both apparently indeterminate and
apparently determinate systems are claimed by atheists to exclude God,
raising questions about the general merit of the arguments.
<<<<<<<<<<

Granted but even serious science/religion believers are groping for ways to
support their intuitions. My view is that there will be no forthcoming
uncontroversial answers to these deepest questions of life. However, I do
think that it is possible to have a well reasoned faith, one that evaluates
the probabilities of truth claims to the best of one's ability within the
scope of knowledge we have today. Beyond that I don't know what more a
person can do.

> >>My claim is that the basic presumptions of most scientists concerning
the scientific method would preclude belief in free will no matter what our
intuitive feelings are about it. One cardinal principal of the scientific
method is repeatability and with it peer review(repeatability again). But
what does this demand entail. It entails that we live in a mechanistic,
unfree cosmos...Whatever the case, science offers no room for freedom(in the
common sense definition) for these mechanics. Even the indeterminacy of
quantum mechanics is considered by most physicists as random or unguided.<<
>
> This involves additional philosophical assumptions besides the assumption
of the usefulness of the scientific method. The scientific method may be
adopted either ad hoc as a method that seems to work frequently or based on
philosophical considerations that it is likely to work much of the time.
Neither of these imply that it therefore must apply to everything. For
example, a belief that God, in His ordinary providence, makes use of means,
but is free to work without, above, or against them, implies that things
will usually but not absolutely always behave according to regular patterns.
>
> Just what the basic presumptions of most scientists would be is rather
moot, especially as many have never thought much about their presumptions.
>
> Another question is how one regards mathematically chaotic systems, i.e.,
those that are theoretically deterministic according to a precise set of
equations, but in practice are humanly indeterminate because they require
impractically precise knowledge of the starting conditions. Is this
considered determinate or indeterminate?
>
> Finally, it may be worth noting that both apparently indeterminate and
apparently determinate systems are claimed by atheists to exclude God,
raising questions about the general merit of the arguments.
>
> Dr. David Campbell
> Old Seashells
> University of Alabama
> Biodiversity & Systematics
> Dept. Biological Sciences
> Box 870345
> Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0345 USA
> bivalve@mail.davidson.alumlink.com>
> That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand Exalted
Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G. Wodehouse, Romance at
Droitgate Spa
>
>
>